Good and evil... do they exist?

[Seditious]

Fun isn't the same thing as pleasure. They aren't truly even related. Fun is a light-hearted sort of satisfaction, living in the moment; while pleasure is just shallow sensory gratification.

personally I use pleasure as a broad category including the mental pleasures and specifically refer to the other as 'sensory pleasure'. Suffering too is a broad category which includes the physical sufferings like pain, and also the mental sufferings like negative emotions.

 

[Seditious]

I'm pretty much using it to mean 'recreation' or 'amusement' - anything that gives you short-term gratification. Drugs and sex are the stereotypical obvious examples, but things like TV, computer games, or reading the metal forums are all valid examples, I think..

yea. the way I'd put it is that it's anything which provokes a sense of elation

A lot of people here seem to think that it is a person's absolute duty to strive to "conquer" pleasure, which I find rather absurd.

who would those people be? I hope you're not misinterpreting me as saying any such thing.

That I state 'desires aren't your end', that 'pleasure is but a means' comes with no 'should' suggesting those means aren't means we should use. It's where pleasure is mistaken as the end, or doesn't reach the end it's intended for that such pursuit should be questioned.

 

[infoterror]

The concept of good versus evil is key to many belief systems.

If the sheep like it, I'm out.

There is no good and evil. There's dumb and less dumb. And those are human perceptions, not inherent to the world, which doesn't care if we live or die...

EUGENICS NOW

 

[Έρεβος]

There is no good and evil. There's dumb and less dumb.

Oh that is perfect.

 

[infoterror]

Eugenics now!

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Sorry for my gigantic absence, Seditious. I'm kind of on a break from the forums. Anyway, time for responses:

Then they're not aware why they want pleasure.

why do they strive for pleasure (anyone who takes a sport, or a hobbie really seriously will tell you how much effort and striving it involves). I wouldn't say they don't care about striving, just that pleasure is what they are striving for because they see it as a way to get what they want.

Okay, so you seem to be suggesting that people who seek pleasure don't know what's really good for them.

My first comment:
What's so bad about a life of pleasure? I say it's up to people how they want to run their lives, whether it be as a Nobel prize winning scholar or as a drunk slacker. Please tell me what you think people should be doing with their lives instead of indulging themselves, so that I can understand why you're against this idea of a pleasure-based life.

My second comment:
Are you against all pleasure, or just some of it? I'm pretty sure it's impossible to exist as a sane human being without indulging one's desire for pleasure every now and then. I'm curious to hear the extent of your objection to pleasure.

That's how I use it also. Maybe reread what you wrote and my response again.

Sure thing. I think this is the relevant passage:

So why do you deny one immediate desire for the good of another more distant desire being satisfied? If you're just here to satisfy desires why does it matter which you satisfy (I mean if that's your goal it surely doesn't matter how long you live or anything). Do you not choose which desires will and wont be satisfied because of some end they pertain to?

It sounded like this was in response to my saying that I wouldn't seek the pleasure of raping someone because I wish to avoid the displeasure of getting arrested. Assuming that's the correct context, then yes, it makes perfect sense to me for a person to pick a more distant (and reliable) pleasure over a more immediate (and risky) pleasure. This isn't difficult to understand, is it? If I'm truly interested in my pleasure, and not a moron, then I'm not going to risk things like sexual crime and hard drugs, which could potentially ruin my chances at ever achieving pleasure again.

I desire to be healthy, but I also desire cookies. These are both motivators of behavior, and if my goal in life is merely to answer desires I have no real reason to care which I satisfy because so long as I'm satisfying desires I'm doing my purpose in life... which is why I asked why you would preference any desire over another if desire satisfaction itself is the end, rather than merely a means to a real end.

A good follow-up to the last quote. As I've said, you do have reason to prioritise your pursuits, because some desires are stronger than others. No need for you to simplify the pursuit of desire to 'fuck it, just give me whatever pleasure i can get, because it's all the same'.

So you're saying having desires doesn't explain acting on desires, which is what I asked you about earlier.

Mmno. That's not what I said. I said the way you act on your desires is determined by which of life's pleasures is more valuable to you. For most people, staying out of jail carries far more potential for pleasure than does raping someone. That will explain why people pick staying out of jail (unless they're insane).

So again I have to ask, why do you satisfy desires?

To put it most generally: we satisfy desires because doing so gives us pleasure, or makes us happy (I don't really care to distinguish between these two in this context -- I still realise that pleasure is kind of a subset of happiness). I don't think I can give you some existential justification for the pursuit of happiness, because happiness is completely subjective. Biologically, we're given desire in order to motivate us to survive. If we didn't have it, it wouldn't matter what the hell we do in our lives, because nothing would matter to us. Desire, in my view, doesn't answer any fundamental questions about life -- it simply 'injects' life with value in the eyes of the desirer.

desires incline us to toward actions (That's all a desire is---an inclination toward an action), but obviously my having a desire to stab someone doesn't explain my stabbing someone, as you've said, if I don't want to spend time in jail, desire isn't the end all to my actions. While a desire to stab would explain the action, why I took that action, why I satisfied that desire is not explained by the mere presence of desire, and that is why I ask you to explain why you satisfy desires, saying 'because I desire an act' just doesn't tell us anything.

Is happiness enough of a justification for you? People want to be happy, and if they're not happy they'll look for ways to be happy. To me, that's a fine explanation for why people pursue their desires. I can't think of any further explanation you would need.

Christ, these replies are getting long. Feel free to narrow the scope of our debate in your next one, as we seem to be continually adding more and more technicalities to bitch over.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

If the sheep like it, I'm out.

There is no good and evil. There's dumb and less dumb. And those are human perceptions, not inherent to the world, which doesn't care if we live or die...

EUGENICS NOW

Sounds like a Satanist/Nietzschean/Darwinian point of view. Can't really argue that ultimately it's the whims of nature which matter, but if you really subscribe to that view, then you must surely have more admiration for the Saddam Husseins and Kim Jong Ils of the world than for this pathetic democracy of ours, which promotes weakness and mediocrity.

Actually, I think you'll find much more mediocrity in a dictatorship than in a democracy. So I guess I find that whole 'survival of the fittest' mentality flawed.

 

[MetalBooger]

if you dont think hitler was evil, then yer an asshole, if you dont think -Name yer baddies- is evil, yer an asshole.

If you dont think cake is good, then yer an asshole, if you dont think -Name yer goodies- is good, yer an asshole.

There, i prove that good an evil exists based on the asshole system.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

if you dont think hitler was evil, then yer an asshole, if you dont think -Name yer baddies- is evil, yer an asshole.

If you dont think cake is good, then yer an asshole, if you dont think -Name yer goodies- is good, yer an asshole.

There, i prove that good an evil exists based on the asshole system.

Shit, I knew the answer was right there under our noses. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

 

[Seditious]

Okay, so you seem to be suggesting that people who seek pleasure don't know what's really good for them.

I'm suggesting people who seek pleasure see that as good for them.

What's so bad about a life of pleasure?

nothing, if it gets you what you want. There's nothing wrong with a life of raping women either, but if you're doing it hoping to alleviate trauma from being molested by your parents as a child then maybe there is something wrong with it---it's not effective, that's what's wrong with it. If pleasure-seeking actually gets you what you want, then that's great, but pleasure itself isn't what you want, it's merely your means.

.
Are you against all pleasure, or just some of it? I'm pretty sure it's impossible to exist as a sane human being without indulging one's desire for pleasure every now and then. I'm curious to hear the extent of your objection to pleasure.

I'm not against any pleasure or pain which succeeds as a means. If pain in exercise makes me better I'm not against that pain, and if pleasure in eating makes me worse then I am against that pleasure. So long as the means is beneficial I'm not against it. I'm only against adhering to a means as if the means itself was the end, and thus ruining our best hope of that end in the ignorance of its existence.

It sounded like this was in response to my saying that I wouldn't seek the pleasure of raping someone because I wish to avoid the displeasure of getting arrested. Assuming that's the correct context, then yes, it makes perfect sense to me for a person to pick a more distant (and reliable) pleasure over a more immediate (and risky) pleasure. This isn't difficult to understand, is it? If I'm truly interested in my pleasure, and not a moron, then I'm not going to risk things like sexual crime and hard drugs, which could potentially ruin my chances at ever achieving pleasure again.

What my difficulty with it is that you are suggesting 'pleasure' isn't the highest value, but that pleasures are means relating to a higher value from which pleasures themselves are given their value---some pleasures not valuable enough means to pursue. If -all- you were concerned with was pleasure, pleasure is pleasure, and it doesn't even matter how much pleasure you get or how long you live, living is just a means to pleasure, and putting off one pleasure now is just a means to getting another pleasure later, unless you have a higher value than pleasure you have no reason to discriminate over them. And if you do, then as I believe I was talking about way back then, then pleasure in fact isn't your goal at all, it's just a means, an instrument to whatever is actually important).

A good follow-up to the last quote. As I've said, you do have reason to prioritise your pursuits, because some desires are stronger than others. No need for you to simplify the pursuit of desire to 'fuck it, just give me whatever pleasure i can get, because it's all the same'.

So if your desire to rape was strongest, but still you deny it so you can enjoy cable TV and pizza and ya know... the benefits of liberty and friendly society, you're not just saying 'well I give in to the strongest desire for pleasure because pleasure is all that matters' you're saying despite pleasures I desire, something is so important I can't risk losing it merely to gain pleasure.

I said the way you act on your desires is determined by which of life's pleasures is more valuable to you. For most people, staying out of jail carries far more potential for pleasure than does raping someone. That will explain why people pick staying out of jail (unless they're insane).

and why do you care whether you have pleasure 100 times in your life or 30 times? pleasure is only for it's own sake right? it's not merely a means to an actual end is it? In other words, if you don't value getting pleasure for any reason other than that pleasure is awesome then you have no reason to discriminate. To say 'I'd rather have two pleasures tomorrow than one today at the expence of those two' is to suggest pleasure is a means for something. You want pleasure right? so why deny it---it must be because something pleasure gets it will get better by not having this pleasure now. It's only in superceding pleasure that you decide not to take pleasure when you can get it.

To put it most generally: we satisfy desires because doing so gives us pleasure, or makes us happy

if the answer to my satisfying desires is that I know it gives me pleasure, then any desire which I know gives me pleasure---the predictive power of this hypothesis affirms---I should be acting to satisfy... but I'm not am I? so that can't possibly be it. That's the objection I'm raising with you.

Is happiness enough of a justification for you? People want to be happy, and if they're not happy they'll look for ways to be happy. To me, that's a fine explanation for why people pursue their desires. I can't think of any further explanation you would need.

Happiness is the only end I can see. Happiness is the end people imagine pleasures are means to, that's my point here. No one seeks pleasure for itself, if someone thinks they do then they just don't understand themselves.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Okay, so for a typical person pleasure is a means to happiness, but not an end in itself. I'm cool with that. I wasn't really trying to structure things in a means-end framework, but that one works fine.

I still find it weird that you say someone whose only goal is pleasure would not discriminate among means to pleasure based on long-term concerns. You make it sound like this person's life is complete as soon as they have achieved pleasure just once.

What if the person seeks to achieve the maximum possible pleasure over their entire lifetime? Surely they wouldn't squander the potential for long-term pleasure on a risky short-term means. If pleasure is really your end, wouldn't you want to ensure that your lifetime pleasure is maximised?

Explain to me why this idea of discriminating among pleasures is so antithetical to having pleasure as your primary goal.

 

[Seditious]

I still find it weird that you say someone whose only goal is pleasure would not discriminate among means to pleasure based on long-term concerns. You make it sound like this person's life is complete as soon as they have achieved pleasure just once.

I say that to explicate how weird the notion of 'pleasure as a goal' is.

Someone who doesn't realize pleasure is but a means may act as if pleaure is the goal, but the proof is in his actions that it in fact isn't, because he will deny his goal... supposedly so as to get his goal later lol. such a process only takes place if you appeal to a means-ends framework from which such decisions are made.

What if the person seeks to achieve the maximum possible pleasure over their entire lifetime? Surely they wouldn't squander the potential for long-term pleasure on a risky short-term means.

doesn't that suggest he doesn't just want pleasure because it is pleasure? that pleasure is merely a means he will continue to seek for what it amounts to beyond what it is? If I had food, and I thought I wanted to eat, but I didn't eat that food, my action would be proof that eating isn't all I want, but that I see eating as potentially a means to something else, which the current food isn't satisfactory for.

If pleasure is really your end, wouldn't you want to ensure that your lifetime pleasure is maximised?

if pleasure is your end how much pleasure you have doesn't matter. The true hedonist wants the highest pleasure to pain ratio. he would be wise to fuck, snort some cocaine, then blow his brains out on the comedown. If pleasure isn't "important"---it's not a means, it's just something you enjoy for its own sake and other than it's enjoyment it has no value---and nothing else is important---pleasure is your 'end' your 'goal in life'---then you have no reason to care about pleasure so much as to suffer and deny potential pleasures, because to have pleasure is all that matters, it wouldn't even matter if you had to die and no longer exist to feel pleasure anymore, because existence isn't important.

Explain to me why this idea of discriminating among pleasures is so antithetical to having pleasure as your primary goal.

if I think I want a drink but someone offers me water and I refuse, clearly I want more than thirst quenching. To deny what would give me what I claim I want is merely to prove that I have mistaken what I truely seek as an end.

 

[volrath666]

Good and evil only exsist on paper

 

[infoterror]

Good and evil are adjectives. What matters is end result: design and function.

"Bah" to training wheels like "good" and "evil" -- more pretense.